Rendering of a high-speed rail station in California California High-Speed Rail Authority

In early April, states from coast to coast put in their bids for the $2.4 billion in federal high-speed rail (HSR) funding that the state of Florida had refused. Maryland, Washington, New York, and Missouri were among the states hoping to get a share of the money. Ohio and Wisconsin had previously joined Florida in saying “no thank you” to the HSR funding.

Depending on whom you ask, the actions of either side could be viewed as economically prudent, or woefully shortsighted. Some see HSR as the future of transportation and one of the most important initiatives since the development of the federal highway system. Others believe that while the infusion of money would certainly benefit their ailing state economies today, the projects they are funding will ultimately cost too much and the projected benefits of HSR are overly optimistic. In many instances, these contrary positions are falling along party lines, a situation that Randy Wade, director of Midwest regional rail and a senior project manager for HNTB, finds troubling.

“I see transportation as a very partisan area of public investment. I’m concerned because I see partisan positions being taken with regard to rail. And a lot of misinformation goes out along with it. That doesn’t serve the country well, and I think that’s the greatest risk,” he said.

Before joining HNTB in 2009, Wade served as passenger rail manager for the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, where he oversaw the state’s passenger rail program. Wade also served as chair of the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative Steering Committee.

Topic on rails
While Wade has been in the game for more than two decades, HSR has become a hot topic only within the last several years. The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) set forth competitive grant programs for capital improvements to intercity rail systems. The following year, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) included appropriations of $8 billion for rail programs. President Obama has served as champion of these transportation investments.

“The president’s response is that we’re all concerned with fuel efficiency and the cost of motor fuels. We’re looking at more fuel-efficient options given that transportation is the biggest consumer of petroleum in the U.S.,” Wade said. “There’s also a need to understand and respond to greenhouse gas emissions. On a per-passenger-mile basis, there’s significantly lower consumption of energy and significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions than with either air or auto.

“(PRIIA) is structured along the lines of the highway program,” he said. “It’s a partnership between the state and the federal government, with the typical 80/20 cost sharing. For us it’s great because we work with state transportation agencies and they’re typically the ones who are, in many ways, the lead.”

HNTB is involved in HSR projects with states throughout the country. In the Midwest, where Wade directs rail operations, the firm is working with transportation departments in Illinois, Missouri, Iowa, and Michigan on rail corridors that connect major cities throughout the region.

Wade said that to maintain the momentum currently driving HSR, a series of annual appropriations is needed to fully fund the program. He and others in the industry are looking forward to the re-authorization of the surface transportation program.

“It’s not just the highway program anymore; it’s the surface transportation program,” he said. “That’s important because Congress has decided that it will have funding for rail in it. That legislative framework is a huge change in the way the U.S. looks at rail from a policy and legislative perspective.”

Taking the cue
The way the United States is starting to look at HSR is similar to the longstanding European and Asian perspectives.

“They’ve got very well-developed high-speed rail systems either in place or under construction,” Wade said. “Many of the countries’ economies aren’t that developed, but they’ve made decisions to move forward with high-speed rail. They’re concerned about fuel consumption. They’re trying to position their countries to have the most efficient transportation system possible.”

One argument against HSR is that, unlike Europe, the United States is a land of wide-open spaces. With low-density pockets of population spread out around the country, rail is not an economically viable solution. Critics point to a proposed line in New York between Albany and Buffalo as an example of how insufficient population won’t provide the necessary ridership.

Proponents respond that while there are many areas of the country where HSR won’t make sense, a majority of the country’s residents live and work in what are called mega-regions, a term the Regional Plan Association defines as “large networks of metropolitan regions that are linked by environmental systems and geography, infrastructure systems, economic linkages, settlement patterns, and shared culture and history.” It’s in these increasingly populated areas where HSR initiatives are being targeted.

“We’re always going to fly from one end of the country to the other, but that 100- to 500-mile corridor is where you’ll find that rail is very competitive,” Wade said.

For those who see mega-regions as the model for “smart” growth in the future, HSR may help further that trend. Low-cost and convenient transportation options are becoming increasingly desirable and play an important role when people choose where to live. There may be an “if you build it, they will come” factor involved with HSR that would project well for its future viability.

Wade doesn’t want to predict the future of HSR when a new federal administration someday takes over; he only hopes that decisions are based on facts and what is best for the country. He does see an evolution under way, however — one that doesn’t completely break with the past, but does conform to new realities.

“The automobile is going to be an integral part of the passenger transportation system forever,” Wade said. “That’s never going to change. But as gas prices increase, people are going to look for other options that are lower cost than the single-passenger automobile, particularly for business travelers. Businesses are always looking for efficient ways to move their employees.”

Dan Naumovich is a freelance business writer and journalist. This article is reprinted from the May 9, 2011, issue of The Zweig Letter (www.thezweigletter.com ).